Charlotte’s revulsion over Huma Abedin’s calculated “stand by your man” routine is surely right. Still, it is amazing, as we speculate about Ms. Abedin’s political future, that the elephant in the room goes unnoticed, or at least studiously unmentioned.

Sorry to interrupt the Best Enabler of a Sociopath Award ceremony but, to recap, Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.

Ms. Abedin’s late father, Dr. Zyed Abedin, was recruited by Naseef to run the JMMA in Saudi Arabia. The journal was operated under the management of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a virulently anti-Semitic and sharia-supremacist organization. When Dr. Abedin died, editorial control of the journal passed to his wife, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin — Huma’s mother.

Saleha Abedin is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to supporters of violent jihad. Among other things, she directs an organization – the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child. The IICWC, through its parent entity (the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief), is a component of the Union for Good (also known as the Union of Good), another formally designated terrorist organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel. (As detailed here, the Obama White House recently hosted Qaradawi’s principal deputy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah, who also endorsed the fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq.)

Like Sheikh Qaradawi, who helped write the charter for the IICWC, Saleha Abedin is an influential sharia activist who has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad. Dr. Abedin has nevertheless been hailed in the progressive press as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” (to quote Foreign Policy). What they never quite get around to telling you is that this means “women’s rights” in the repressive sharia context.

Back to daughter Huma. In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.

Go here to read the very interesting rest. How did this woman get a security clearance let alone be deputy chief of staff for Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State? The US policy of cozying up to the odious Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East becomes quite a bit more understandable when a person with the background of Huma Abedin is allowed to become so influential in our foreign policy. I have long known that we have fools running the country under the current administration. Some of them may be far worse than fools.

I see no realistic scenario in which a Hillary Clinton protégée at her level would ever be deported as an undesirable. If anything, her connections to Muslim power circles make such an outcome even less likely.

Obviously, hitching her political aspiration to such a wayward pony seems at present a miscalculation, but if Carlos Danger’s sins had not become so public, imagine all the wonderful blackmail opportunities that could have been brought to bear by his wife’s associates to keep him in line. It’s a plotline worthy of Hitchcock — if only the notion of a Jewish politician serving as a Trojan horse for the Muslim Brotherhood were not so politically incorrect.

Besides, Muslim-alert organizations (e.g. jihadwatch.org) have been denouncing Mrs. Weiner for years now, with very little to show for it. It is ironic that the political marriage that was designed to legitimize both of these people is now helping to marginalize them. There’s at least some poetic justice in that.

All that being said, I do feel genuinely sorry for the woman to have wound up with such a psychopath. Who would have guessed that an arranged marriage designed to advance the murderous designs of the Muslim Brotherhood could be so bereft of family values?

I hate to ask a stupid question, but if Huma believed in sharia law, why would she marry a Jewish man? Doesn’t the Muslim faith go through the father – so that if your father is Muslim you are automatically considered a Muslim? What if your father is Jewish? Or Christian?

You are correct Sharon that Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. Weiner would have had to have converted to Islam. There is no evidence of that. Assuming that is the case, an alternative explanation is that the marriage is one of politics and a sham. Considering that the man who officiated at the marriage is that paragon of marital fidelity, Bill Clinton, I give some credence to that theory. Questions have been raised as to what legal authority Bill Clinton had to marry anyone:

It is interesting that Huma, the most high profile Islamic woman in the country, has received no static from the Islamic community as far as I know, for this marriage that flies in the face of Islam. The closer you look at this, the more curious it becomes.

This Weiner-Abedin political alliance (a.k.a. marriage) is exactly the same as Billary’s: meant to advance Whiner’s putrid, political aspirations and Abedin’s (likely not “sleeping with the enemy”) joyless jihad.

The disreputable Mr. Sailer has spoken of the “Idiocratization” of American public life (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/). You look at the trio running for Mayor of New York (or any three North American Episcopal bishops) and you realize he may be right.

With Islam its all about power. Someone in Abedin’s position would be expected to play along, if indeed the marriage is loveless. Muslims broke 90% for Obama in the elections, This shows that for all the calls of silly Christians for a moral front with Muslims against abortion and the homosexual agenda, the Muslims would rather take care of themselves first. The white Christians are about the only considerable bloc that votes on principles.

This shows that for all the calls of silly Christians for a moral front with Muslims against abortion and the homosexual agenda…

I know I’ve pointed this out before, but contrary to widespread Catholic opinion, Islam is not particularly opposed abortion. A few Islamic scholars prohibit it, but the majority follow the “ensoulment” principle by which a baby is not a person until some later stage of the pregnancy. (And really, which of those scholars is a woman – or whoever has control of her – likely to heed once either of them decide that a baby would be an inconvenience?)

There is also no particular prohibition against contraception within Islam (though of course numerous Muslims power brokers believe in restricting anything that many in the West == rightly or wrongly –regard as sexually liberating to women).

To put it less charitably, the Vatican is now in a position where it is trying to make common cause with those who think gays should be stoned and women (not to mention Christians, Jews, etc.) should be repressed. Even those who understand that one cannot always choose one’s allies have to also realize that such an alliance is unlikely to end well.

HA, my impression is that Muslims follow a very strict line when it comes to abortion and contraception. They are very close to Catholics in this regard. Muslims are generally quite nice people – I grew up with countless Muslim friends. Its when the mullahs take charge that the problems begin.

If I were to generalize from my own “impressions”, I would say that it is wise to refrain from generalizing too much from one’s own impressions. The question ultimately is what Islamic teaching does and does not permit. Those who believe that life is sacred from the moment of its conception need to be realistic over how much support for their views they will find among Muslims.

And that’s great that the Muslims you know are nice people, but the observation is likewise a non sequitir. Whatever one chooses to extrapolate from a rabble of supporters with “Hail, Satan” signs, in my experience most of the people who think a woman’s right to choose is the paramount issue when it comes to abortion are just as nice as the people on my side of the issue. Likewise, Muslims by and large tend to take marriage far more seriously than the typical Christian but there is only so much common ground I will be able to find with those who believe polygamy is an acceptable lifestyle choice, regardless of how nice they are.